JUDGMENT By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri P.R. Maurya and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent. 2. This petition is preferred for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the judgment and order dated 1.10.2004 passed by the State Public Service Tribunal, Lucknow in Claim Petition No. 503/2002, Chokhelal v. Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Agra and others. By the impugned order, the Tribunal has allowed the claim petition, directing the Basic Shiksha Adhikari, Agra to allow salary to the petitioner as admissible for working on the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari for the period he worked on the said post and to make payment @12% simple interest per annum on the amount from 1.5.2000 till its actual date of payment to the petitioner for delayed payment of pensionary benefits. 3. The facts as culled out from the record are that Sri Filvard Kunwar Virendra Singh who was working as Nagar Shiksha Adhikari in Nagar Nigam, Agra, retired from the post on 30.4.1999. The petitioner being senior most person working on the post of Assistant Nagar Shiksha Adhikari, was directed to hold additional charge of the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari vide letter dated 29.4.1999 issued by Zila Basic Shiksha Adhikari. The letter dated 29.4.1999 reads : dk;kZy;&ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh vkxjkA i=kad&ys[kk@1469@99&2000 fnukad 29-4-99 fQyoMZ dqaoj chjsUnz flag] uxj f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] uxj fuxe] vkxjkA fo"k;%& Jh fQyoMZ dq0 chjsUnz flag] uxj f'k{kk vf/kdkjh] uxj fuxe] vkxjk ds lsok fuo`Rr gksus ds lEcU/k esaA mijksDr fo"k;d vkids dk;kZy; ds i=kad&f'k0v0@19@5186@99&2 dk voyksdu djsa tks uxj f'k{kk vf/kdkjh ds fnukad 30-4-1999 dks lsok fuo`Rr gksus ds QyLo:i uxj f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dk pktZ nsus ds lEcU/k esaA mDr ds lEcU/k esa vkidks funsZf'kr fd;k tkrk gS fd vki vius in dk pktZ vfxze vkns'kksa rd lhfu;j ¼ofj"B½ lgk;d uxj f'k{kk vf/kdkjh dks nsus dk d"V djsaA g0 viBuh; 29-4-1999 ftyk csfld f'k{kk vf/kdkjh vkxjkA 4. It appears that Shri Chokhe Lala, respondent No. 2 took charge of the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari on 30.4.1999. One Sri Rajendra Singh, Nagar Shiksha Adhikari working in district Kanpur was transferred to Agra on the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Agra. Consequently, Sri Chokhe Lal, respondent No. 2 was directed to handover the charge to Sri Rajendra Singh. One Sri Rajendra Singh, Nagar Shiksha Adhikari working in district Kanpur was transferred to Agra on the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari, Nagar Nigam, Agra. Consequently, Sri Chokhe Lal, respondent No. 2 was directed to handover the charge to Sri Rajendra Singh. However, he, vide his letter dated 5.8.1999, declined to handover charge on the pretext that elections have been declared and continued to hold charge of the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari till his retirement on 31.1.2000. On his retirement, Sri Chokhe Lal, respondent No. 2 was paid all his retiral dues as admissible under law but a claim petition was preferred by him stating that he has not been paid salary of the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari for the period i.e. 30.4.1999 upto 31.1.2000, he had worked on it. He also claimed interest on delayed payment of retiral dues with12% interest per annum. 5. The case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was that though Shri Chokhelal had been given additional charge of the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari, Agra pursuant to the order dated 29.4.1999 but this was a local/temporary arrangement and that on posting of Sri Rajendra Singh on the said post, the charge was not handed over by Sri Chokhe Lal which was in violation of lawful orders and as he continued to hold charge of the post illegally till his retirement, he was not entitled to any claim in view of Rule 49 (III) & (IV) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules. 6. According to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner, respondent No. 2 had not discharged the role of the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari, Nagar Nigam beyond period of 19 days but had illegally continued to hold charge. He assailed the order dated 1.10.2004 stating the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary stating that respondent had not been promoted to the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari at any time and was working in the local arrangement till posting of the new incumbent. He assailed the order dated 1.10.2004 stating the order impugned passed by the Tribunal is illegal and arbitrary stating that respondent had not been promoted to the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari at any time and was working in the local arrangement till posting of the new incumbent. Sri Rajendra Singh who joined the post on 13.7.1999 and that the temporary arrangement came to an automatic end within a span of 44 days, as such, respondent No. 2, Chokhelal is not entitled to retiral benefits calculated on the basis of holding charge on the post of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari in view of Rule 49 (IV) of the U.P. Fundamental Rules which reads thus: “No additional pay shall be admissible to a Government Servant who is appointed to hold current charge of the routine duties of another post or post suspension of the duration of the additional charge.” 7. From a perusal of the impugned order, it appears that respondent No. 2, the applicant before the Tribunal relied upon a decision rendered by the Apex Court in Shivraj v. Lt. Governor of Portblare, AIR 1999 SC 838 , wherein the Court held that if an employee is ordered to discharge duties of a higher post and he has worked on that post even though temporarily or on officiating capacity, he would be entitled to salary attached to higher post and that payment of higher salary offered, shall not amount to promotion. The Tribunal noted that in the instant case, the petitioner had been assigned work of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari vide letter dated 29.4.1999 aforesaid and having worked as such till his retirement on 1.2.2000, he was entitled to the salary of the post till his retirement. The Tribunal also considered as to whether petitioner is entitled for interest on delayed payment and relying upon the decision rendered by the Allahabad High Court in Radhika Devi v. Union of India, 2002 (1) LBESR 949 , allowed the claim of the applicant for interest till actual date of payment of his dues as directed the Tribunal in the impugned order 8. It is apparent that no action had been taken by the appellants against the petitioner on the ground of alleged non handing over charge by him to Sri Rajendra Singh on his joining on the ground of declaration of elections. It is apparent that no action had been taken by the appellants against the petitioner on the ground of alleged non handing over charge by him to Sri Rajendra Singh on his joining on the ground of declaration of elections. The petitioner had continued to work on the post discharging his duties as Nagar Siksha Adhikari, Agra. Sri Rajendra Singh could not have been transferred to Agra for taking over charge during election period and had not discharged the duties of the office of Nagar Shiksha Adhikari as admittedly charge was not handed over to him by Sri Chokhelal, respondent No. 2. 9. The respondents also have admitted that he was entitled for 19 days of salary for the work he has discharged on the post of Nagar Shikhsa Adhikari, Agra. If he is entitled to 19 days of salary for working on the said post, he would also be entitled to salary of the said post till his date of retirement i.e. 1.2.2000 on the aforesaid reasoning of having discharged his duties as Nagar Shiksha Adhikari, Agra till the date of his retirement. 10. As regards delay, the Tribunal recorded a finding of fact that delay is attributable to the department and not to the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the department is liable to pay interest as directed by the Tribunal in the order impugned. 11. The writ petition is dismissed. 12. No order as to costs.